Lisa Owen interviews Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei

Greens
propose new ministerial disclosure regime based on British
rules, requiring quarterly declarations of ministers'
meetings, travel and hospitality.

Proposed regime would
require Key to name those attending his Maori Party
fundraiser and Collins to name the Chinese border official
at her Oravida dinner

Says if a minister is at a meeting
or event in their ministerial capacity, they should have to
report it publically; "too many ministers are getting away
with things"

Challenges National and Labour to back the
proposal, saying it wouldnn't need a law change but could
simply be written into cabinet manual

Denies it would be
the end of all private dinners for ministers, but would
expect Cabinet office to enforce it rigorously

Turei
expects she and Russel Norman could be co-deputy Prime
Ministers if there's a Labour-Greens government after the
election

"There's no convention, no rules, to stop there
being more than one"

Denies Greens could be excluded from
Labour-led coalition if New Zealand First holds balance of
power: "If they [Labour] needs us for confidence and supply,
they need us to be government"... but also accepts "if they
lock us out completely, they lock us out".

Insists the
Greens "want to change the government", suggesting they
would offer Labour confidence and supply even without a
coalition deal

The Nation is proudly
brought to you by New Zealand on Air’s Platinum
Fund.

____________________________

Lisa Owen:
Fundraising behind closed doors, refusing to name dinner
guests, is that good enough?

Metiria Turei:
It’s not good enough for the public. The public are
entitled to transparency and accountability by their
ministers, and that’s why today we are announcing a policy
to require ministers to report quarterly on a number of
issues. The hospitality they receive, the gifts they get and
give that are over $500 and the external meetings that they
hold – they’re not required to disclose those at all.
You have to get those (details) through the Official
Information Act.

Let’s take a look at the
situation of Judith Collins, then, and see if that would
make any difference here. She would have to disclose who was
at dinner under your rules?

That’s right,
she would have to have disclosed the meeting, that the
meeting took place, if she received any hospitality – so
who paid for that dinner, and the fact that people at that
dinner were representatives from the business as well as
this official from the foreign government.

Your
proposed rules say the hospitality would need to be at least
$500 before she had to start naming names – is that too
high?

No, I don’t think it’s too high at
this stage. That it what the current rules require, but
ministers only have to report gifts over $500 every year, so
we’re tightening up those rules. We might need to change
that in time, but $500 seems like a reasonable time to
start.

But then if she had $495 dollars of kai
and drinks, then she’s off the hook, isn’t
she?

That’s right, to some extent those
hospitality rules wouldn’t apply, but the meeting with an
external organisation would. So that rule would require her
to report.

That’s if she’s doing that in a
ministerial capacity, though. She argues this is a private
dinner so she’s off the hook there,
too.

Well, that’s what she would argue. We
would expect the Cabinet office to hold her to account, to
set the rules very clearly, so ministers knew exactly what
they needed to report on - and this is the kind of meeting
that is otherwise kept outside of the public eye that should
be reported on. This is the intent of the policy. The
cabinet office will have to work through the details of
those rules.

So does that mean there are no
private dinners?

Well there may well be some,
but we know that John Key, for example, has dinners with
SkyCity and there was a huge convention centre deal that
resulted from a whole lot of relationships and dinners, so
let’s be really clear, the most important thing is for the
public to have accountability and transparency. The rules
are not good enough yet, we can make them better, and we
should.

Would John Key have to name all the
people he sat next to or were at that
dinner?

We would hope that would be the case
and we would expect the cabinet office to assist with the
development of these rules. These rules would be set out in
the cabinet manual so they don’t require legislation -
they don’t require other parties to agree with these
rules. It’s a policy about changing the Cabinet manual
requirements.

So it’s a challenge to National
then, isn’t it?

It’s a challenge to
National and to Labour. Both would be affected by these
rules. The Greens would be affected by these rules if we
have ministerial positions, but the public are entitled to
this transparency, that’s what we want to deliver to
them.

But hang on, the Prime Minister can play
golf with whoever he likes, he can raise money for whoever
he likes, and Judith Collins can have dinner with her mates.
In the absence of any evidence of corruption, why are you
wanting to treat it like it’s a
crime?

We’re wanting to treat it like this
is their job as ministers, where they’re being advertised
as having access to ministers, which is part of this golf
game business, or the fundraising, for example, for the
Maori party, or other areas where ministers are being
advertised as being accessible by the payment of some kind
of fee or ticket. They are there in their ministerial
capacity, therefore they should have to report on those
meetings or those activities.

I think most
people would accept that transparency is one thing, but what
about privacy?

It is important that there’s
privacy for ministers and MPs, but if a minister is doing an
activity in their ministerial role then it should be
reported on, and that is why we want to see tightening of
the rules because too many ministers are getting away with
things – it’s happened with Judith Collins and the
Oravida dinner - more and more information’s coming out
that actually there is a ministerial role that’s been
played here that she’s not reporting on.

But
then again, John Key was there as leader of the National
Party and not as the Prime Minister – not in a ministerial
capacity.

No, actually, he was advertised as
being there as the Prime Minister and that is a minister
role for which there should be reporting. If he’s at a
golf game and people are paying to play golf with the Prime
Minister then he’s there in his ministerial capacity and
that should be reported.

What about
constituents? What if they want to go talk to a minister,
say, about a private problem – an issue around sex abuse,
let’s say, how do you protect them? Won’t it have a
chilling effect, and the name of the person coming to see
them written down? Won’t it scare them
away?

Not necessarily if it’s in their role
as an MP. You can never write the perfect rules to catch
every situation, but MPs constituency meetings are
considered to be private - they can’t be accessed by the
OIA, and we would expect that to remain, but in a
ministerial capacity where access to ministers is being
advertised as part of the payment, then that should be
transparent.

So why just ministers, then?
Aren’t you exempting yourself from greater transparency by
just targeting ministers?

Hopefully not if we
get to have ministerial positions, but ministers have much
more influence over government direction and policy, they
have a huge amount of responsibility, they should be the
first ones that have to report. We would like to see some of
that reporting extended which is what we proposed for the
lobbying bill – that didn’t get parliamentary support,
but we can do it with ministers.

So, the Greens
want ministerial positions, you’ve made it clear. Let’s
talk, then, about your relationship with Labour. Your
proposal for a pre-election partnership - it was jettisoned
by Labour - so did the Greens leak that proposal to the
media?

No, we did not.

If
it wasn’t you, it must have been
Labour?

That’s the question. I understand
that Labour talked with their colleagues about it, we talked
with our colleagues about it – it’s
unknown.

So you’re categorical it wasn’t
the Greens?

Yes.

Therefore it
must have been Labour?

I don’t know. The
issue for us is we’ve been working with Labour now over a
two-year period with various leaders and various CEOs – or
chiefs of staff, sorry – about how to talk about each
other in public, how to work with each other more
corroboratively where we think it’s a good idea - so this
messaging work we’ve been doing with Labour has come after
a lot of discussion, a lot of time. We are disappointed with
the outcome, but we can see why Labour has chosen the
position it has and we’ll still continue to work together
as best we can.

It was simple maths, wasn’t
it? Labour could never accept that offer because even with
you it’s not a government-in-waiting, it doesn’t have
the numbers, it is looking to Winston Peters. They need New
Zealand First, so it was a rejection of you in favour of a
relationship with New Zealand First.

Well I
think they want to keep their options open, they don’t
want to present as a Labour/Green government to electors,
but what we know is that 70 percent of Labour voters want
the Greens in the government with them. So it’s important
to their people to have the Green Party there and I think
it’s important to the public as well.

Well
let’s look at a scenario then. Labour goes into a formal
coalition arrangement with New Zealand First after the
election and that excludes you. Will you support them on
confidence and supply?

If they need us for
confidence and supply they need us to be government, and
that puts us in a very powerful position – whether or not
they want to try to exclude us is another
question.

What if New Zealand First says no,
because they have before?

Well they have
before, but they haven’t over the past few years and,
actually, we’ve been working really closely with New
Zealand First, we’ve worked with them on the manufacturing
inquiry, on the CIR – our relationship with New Zealand
First is much better.

So is that the bottom
line for you – we’re in a formal coalition or there’s
no confidence and supply?

There’s no bottom
lines, what I’m trying to describe is that if they were to
need us for confidence and supply, that means they need us
for the Budget, it means they need us to govern. If they
need us then we need a completely different discussion about
whether or not it should be a closer relationship - like in
coalition in some form, or confidence and supply, but we
would have to discuss that after.

What if they
say confidence and supply but we’re not giving you any
ministers?

Again, if they need us then we,
the Greens, are in a very strong bargaining position. It’s
very difficult to say know how that’s actually going to
play out.

But if New Zealand First says no to
that - it vetoes Green ministers, it vetoes a formal
coalition involving the Greens - will you walk away from
that?

When then Labour’s going to have to
decide what it wants to do, what kind of government it wants
to have.

Do you want a Labour government or do
you want a National government? That’s what it comes down
to, isn’t it?

To some extent. I want to
change the government and I know that Labour does, too, and
I know that New Zealand First have talked about that,
although they have kept themselves open for the
moment.

So that means in order to get a Labour
government you either have to sit on the sidelines with no
ministers - if that is what they say is their coalition
deal is with Winston Peters, you will have to suck it up,
won’t you?

If they lock us out completely,
well then they lock us out. If they need us for confidence
and supply then they need us to be government. It’s up to
the voters to decide how much power we have after the
negotiations. We need party vote from the New Zealand public
to strengthen our arm to make sure we are part of a strong
Labour/Green government. That’s where we want to be -
that’s what we’re offering to New Zealanders. I think
New Zealanders will take up that offer with their party
vote.

Your co-leader Russel Norman was on this
show indicating that he would like to be deputy Prime
Minister. You’re his co-leader, would you also expect to
hold the role of deputy Prime
Minister?

There’s no convention, there’s
no rules that stop there from being more than one Deputy
Prime Minister. Russel and I have had a co-leadership role
in the Greens, it’s worked very well for the Green Party
– I think something similar would work very well for the
country as well. Cabinet is already ranked so the actual
practicalities would have to play out. There’s nothing
that stops there (from) being two Deputy Prime
Ministers.

So how would you divide the position
up then?

The same way we do now, which is
that we each have our own expertise, we have our own roles
that we play and we do that work, and there’s no reason
that couldn’t happen in a Deputy Prime Minister role as
well.

"In making the decision, the Police executive has considered almost five years worth of 'use of force' data… It consistently shows that the Taser is one of the least injury-causing tactical options available when compared with other options, with a subject injury rate of just over one per cent for all deployments." More>>

Even an SOE that exists to fulfil a public function neglected by the market or which is a natural monopoly would nevertheless be forced to act "on the basis of commercial considerations" and would be prohibited from discriminating in favour of local businesses in purchases and sales. Foreign companies would be given standing to sue SOEs in domestic courts for perceived departures from the strictures of the TPP... More>>

Labour has listened to the families of whose loved ones have been killed at work and calls on other political parties to back its proposals to make workplaces safer and prevent unnecessary deaths on the job. More>>

As we learned yesterday, the reviews propose that the democratically elected representation on DHBs should be reduced, such that community wishes will be able to be over-ridden by political appointees. In today’s revelations, the reviews also propose a return to the destructive competitive health model of the 1990s. More>>